On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 03:14:43PM +, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l
at The Open Group wrote:
> Or I could just go with my original suggestion of adding:
> Conforming applications shall specify each option separately; that is,
> grouping option letters (for example, −fH) need not be re
I think we should cease discussions of how options are parsed, or
what bash does with ulimit, and return to documenting what is
reasonable to document for ulimit.
There is another case not yet considered:
ulimit -n -n
The shells that only allow a single option and report whatever was
req
On 11/17/20 10:56 AM, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
Chet Ramey wrote, on 17 Nov 2020:
On 11/17/20 10:14 AM, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
Maybe you could handle those by seeing that the option argument is
alphabetic (and not "unlimited") and
Chet Ramey wrote, on 17 Nov 2020:
>
> On 11/17/20 10:14 AM, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
>
> > Maybe you could handle those by seeing that the option argument is
> > alphabetic (and not "unlimited") and treating it as a string of
> > option letters instead of reporting t
On 11/17/20 10:14 AM, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
Maybe you could handle those by seeing that the option argument is
alphabetic (and not "unlimited") and treating it as a string of
option letters instead of reporting that it is an invalid number.
From `getopt's pers
Chet Ramey wrote, on 17 Nov 2020:
>
> One consequence of the POSIX description is, as I said above, that it
> restricts each invocation to modifying one limit. That's how it can finesse
> the `newlimit is an operand'. I'm not going to reduce functionality and
> throw away backwards compatibility wi
On 11/17/20 4:53 AM, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
Chet Ramey wrote, on 16 Nov 2020:
On 11/16/20 11:05 AM, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
Chet Ramey wrote, on 16 Nov 2020:
Thanks. Looks like bash is parsing the ulimit options in an unusual
Chet Ramey wrote, on 16 Nov 2020:
>
> On 11/16/20 11:05 AM, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
> > Chet Ramey wrote, on 16 Nov 2020:
> > >
> > > > Thanks. Looks like bash is parsing the ulimit options in an unusual
> > > > way instead of using getopt() or similar.
> > >
> >
